zlacker

Amongst groups for extremely gifted kids I’ve seen, well over half are neurodivergent. It’s a well understood issue in gifted kids psychology. When these kids are accommodated appropriately they ace their classes, and when not, they fail out entirely, even at the most basic levels of education.

So the statistics mentioned in the article are not necessarily inconsistent with what we’d expect, since Stanford is a highly selective school that’s by definition going to be picking gifted kids over less gifted ones, and from that group will pick those that were accommodated appropriately.

(There could also be cheating - I don’t know either way. I’m just commenting on the premise of the article. One person in it claims the kids aren’t really disabled because they don’t have wheelchairs. Hopefully it’s fairly obvious that this claim is totally illogical. Such an obviously unreasonable claim on a website called “Reason” makes me wonder what they are actually trying to achieve there.)

>>jph00+(OP)
> Such an obviously unreasonable claim on a website called “Reason” makes me wonder what they are actually trying to achieve there.

Libertarianism, it would seem

>>jph00+(OP)
Just curious: If non-neurodivergent children are given the same accomodations (which are?) do they significantly outperform their peers too? For example: it's well known that 1-on-1 instruction time correlates to better academic outcomes.

(I'm not an educator; I have no idea.)

>>swiftc+u
> Libertarianism, it would seem

In some peculiar, perverted sense, given that evaluating claims of disability requires breaching students' medical privacy. You wouldn't normally expect libertarians to so overtly be okay with invasions of personal privacy.

>>jph00+(OP)
What is neurodivergent though? If it’s a third of people, you can probably deem that normal.

>>jph00+(OP)
My current employer had me answer the question of whether I'm "disabled." I've never answered "yes" to this question since I've never been diagnosed with any form of neurodivergence, though therapists have suggested that there's a good chance I'd be diagnosed if I saw a specialist. But this time I noticed that my employer's definition of "disabled" included not only neurodivergence but also depression, which I do have a diagnosis for. So... now I'm disabled.

I have no idea what use the label is when it's so broadly defined. It doesn't give my employer any information that would help them support me in any way. Fingers crossed there is some benefit to it.

>>beambo+u1
Similarly getting extra time on a test sure as heck would have improved my scores in many cases.

>>woodru+w1
That’s probably because Reason’s libertarian goal is not to get claims of disability evaluated. The goal is to get the government mandate for disability accommodations eliminated, which eliminates any benefit of making the claims and therefore any reason to evaluate the claims.

>>beambo+u1
100%, it's one of the irksome things about the education system in general - resources are limited. It's a hard problem to solve.

>>dyausp+12
It's a way to separate us so that we can fight about it and not focus on the important aspect which is to provide everyone the help they need and deserve to make a successful life for themselves. Some may need more help than others, and so the powers that be who want to keep all that profit for themselves target those who need more help with dumb articles like this one which spread FUD.

>>dyausp+12
Current estimates place it around 20% of the population. Wouldn't take a whole lot of sampling error in admissions to result in 40% of admitted students

>>woodru+w1
I think they are just commenting on the bias of Reason magazine (it is a well known libertarian magazine).

>>jph00+(OP)
It is interesting to consider that disability may enable much higher academic performance as long as people get the proper accommodations. After all, wouldn't it be interesting if people we think of as disabled can - under the correct conditions - be more productive than 'able' people. An individuals' capability is generally pretty circumstantial and I think we should be open to asking questions about how optimal our current social structure is for productivity and capacity going forward. We may need to imagine new ways of living and structuring work and society to reach even higher levels of productivity.

>>dkarl+v2
It probably helps the employer demonstrate that they hire and retain disabled people, likely assisting with some government quotas, and defenses against lawsuits by aggrieved ex-employees.

>>ok_dad+O2
You almost lost me in the first half but yeah, that title alone shows the intentions of the editorial

>>jph00+(OP)
>It’s a well understood issue in gifted kids psychology

if it's a well-understood issue in a scientific field, it's basically well-understood through the work of neurodivergent scientists.

>>swiftc+43
Stanford doesn't try to admit a random sample of the population, and its quite posssible the things it does select on positively correlate with the conditions at issue; it's quite plausible nonsampling error (systemic bias) is a bigger issue than sampling error in explaining any prevalence difference from the general population here.

>>guizad+u3
I should specify also that I am not saying a medical diagnosis is not important, or that there is no such thing as ADHD or Autism.

I believe as a society we need to be more flexible in every area for every human and also to give individual attention to everyone so they can excel. Some people will need more help than others, like those with ADHD, and some will need much, much more help than others, such as those with more extreme sensory issues with Autism who may not even be able to go out in public without accommodations.

>>dyausp+12
I think, broadly, this is what neurodivergent people want. Nobody considers having poor vision a disability despite it nominally being one since it's so well accommodated. And it's so well accommodated in part because it affects so many people that it's normal.

The world right now doesn't do a great job of "by default" accommodating people with the broad class of difficulties experienced by people that fall under the umbrella of neurodivergence and takes as given that everyone is in the 70-80% group. So now it's a disability with doctor's visits and paperwork and specific individual accommodations when it very well could not be.

>>mrgold+y2
And ADHD meds seem like they would be helpful for studying.. How and where do we draw the line who gets and needs additional support?

>>jph00+(OP)
Your point about Stanford having a larger-than-average proportion of 'extremely gifted' kids is reasonable. Perhaps the smartest 20% at Stanford are drawn from the smartest 0.1% nationally.

But I think you're too dismissive of this part:

  The professors Horowitz interviewed largely back up this theory. "You hear 'students with disabilities' and it's not kids in wheelchairs," one professor told Horowitch. "It's just not. It's rich kids getting extra time on tests."

You said "One person in it claims the kids aren’t really disabled because they don’t have wheelchairs" but this is a straw man. The professor did not say this.

If you read the statement charitably, the professor only pointed out two things that are probably true, which I paraphrase below:

- most people, when they hear about students with disabilities, imagine physical disabilities

- the professor has seen that a sizable proportion of students classified as disabled do not require accommodations

Now, we could argue about what are reasonable accommodations and which are not. This is where I'm interested to hear your perspective.

I assume you are in favor of these two:

- kid needs wheelchair and a ramp, so kid can attend class

- kid needs glasses, so kid can see the whiteboard

I assume you are not in favor of this one:

- kid cannot find the derivative of 2x^2, so kid is allowed to use a CAS calculator for Calculus 1 exams

What do you think about this one?

- kid can pass the English Composition 1 exam, but only if given twice as much time as other students

>>bee_ri+c3
I know; I'm pointing out this is manifestly not a libertarian worldview. It's part and parcel with Reason being ideologically paleoconservative with a libertarian dressing.

>>beambo+u1
I don't know about Stanford, but in earlier schooling accomodations can include things like being allowed to sit on a bouncy chair, or use a fidget toy, or type instead of hand-write (physical asynchronous development is a common issue), or wear headphones, or take more frequent breaks.

I do think that more flexibility in educational environments might be good for most people, yes.

>>dyausp+12
A third is about as common as astigmatism in >50 year olds (like me, for instance!) I wear glasses to accommodate this disability, and as a result have nearly no practical problems due to it.

I don't think a problem having a high frequency means that we should decide it doesn't matter or need rectification.

>>jph00+Xv
That's true, but astigmatism:

- is clearly defined

- can be measured objectively (with autorefractors, keratometers, corneal topographers)

- can be corrected cheaply ($20 glasses) to eliminate any disadvantage in performance or efficiency

Neurodivergence:

- is not clearly defined

- cannot be measured objectively, and is diagnosed using behavioral observations and cognitive tests

- may rely on 'accommodations' that, in the hands of someone without a diagnosis, would be considered cheating

Imagine I don't have astigmatism. If I were to take your glasses, would they improve my performance in college?

Imagine my legs are fine. If I were to take someone's wheelchair and start using it daily, would that improve my performance in college?

Imagine I am neurotypical. If I were to take 2x the time on a test, would my performance improve?

>>rahimn+VB
You misunderstand how neurodivergence is be handled in education. It isn't a single diagnosis, and does not have a single accommodation. We use a catch-all word because it makes it easier to talk about as a collection of issues, but that's not how it's diagnosed or treated.

If you would find wearing noise blocking ear muffs, or sitting on a bouncy chair, or using a typing instrument instead of writing, improves your performance on a test, then yes that should be permitted.

(I do also think it would be a good idea if people had longer for many tests or tests had less on them. That kind of speed is rarely an important part of real world workplaces so those tests are rewarding low-value skills.)

>>rahimn+ob
Your request to read charitably is not supported by your followup of cartoonish straw man questions.

You are using rhetorical trickery to make a point rather than engaging in honest dialog.

>>jph00+iX
"If you would find wearing noise blocking ear muffs, or sitting on a bouncy chair, or using a typing instrument instead of writing, improves your performance on a test, then yes that should be permitted."

The thing these examples have in common is that they don't give you any inherent advantage that invalidates the purpose of the test. (Assuming it's not a handwriting test, or an 'ignoring distractions' test.)

I would group all of these along with the examples I gave: corrective glasses, and wheelchairs. They should be available to all students, without diagnosis or discrimination.

If you think limited time on tests doesn't serve a useful purpose, then why give 'extra' time to only some students, and not to all students?

>>jph00+IX
I used no trickery.

I am attempting to ascertain where you draw the line.

I offered examples that I presume we agree on, on both sides of the line.

Then I gave an example where we might disagree.

If you feel my questions are 'cartoonish straw man questions' then that of course is your right.

However, I want to make it clear that:

- you mischaracterized the quotation from the professor in the article

- I would honestly like to understand (i) whether you agree there is a line to be drawn between things that correct for impediments that are irrelevant to the competency being tested, and (ii) where you would draw that line.

If the manner in which I've written my questions makes it seem like I have any intention other than to understand your position more clearly, I apologize.

>>aeturn+k3
^^This! Our current societal and cultural structure is not adequately set up to deal with, for example climate change and subsequent mass migrations, widening wealth gap, increasing authoritarianism, centrlising of control and power and a myriad of other problems, not to mention any second and third order effects; let alone improve to higher levels of productivity.

>>rahimn+ob
There's a difference in kind not degree to the two sets of questions.

It's the difference between someone giving me a ride to work and someone doing my job for me. If the the point of the Calculus class is - ugh, it's been awhile for me so I might be messing this up - to teach the power rule or the thing being taught in English class is how to write a cogent essay in a set period of time then giving a student a calculator or more time is doing the job for the kid.

If they're incapable of doing the work why are the in class? Maybe there's a different class that's more appropriate for them?

>>hacker+oX2
I love the ride analogy.

So it sounds like you agree with me that, for an English Composition exam, all students should receive the same amount of time. Is that correct?

But now I'm wondering:

- if someone's typing speed is slow due to arthritis or an identifiable condition, shouldn't they get extra time?

- if someone's typing speed is slow just because they never learned to touch type, should they get extra time? after all, the exam is meant to be testing English composition, not typing.

>>rahimn+zk3
The second hypothetical is to me less interesting. Presumably typing in this class is pre-requisite. This to me is much closer to "do my work" then "drive me to work" ; though the work in question isn't the class itself but instead the pre-requisite.

The first is getting right at the nub of thing. I think accommodations should be made but the worst accommodation is one that would advantage anyone not just a person with a condition that could hold someone back.

So - to switch hypotheticals to one that I was thinking about for no reason - you would give Stephen Hawking a speech synthesizer in Physics 101 not more time. Any student would like more time but no one able to communicate would be interested in a speech synthesizer.

That would be my version of fair in any case. Is it possible? I don't know and the incentives involved would (as I think a lot of people would agree) be pushing towards the worst kind of accommodation.